Isic.ca ordered transferred (1 Viewing)

davidm

BusinessRegistration.ca
Joined
Mar 31, 2021
Topics
16
Posts
45
Likes
81
  • #485 - Canadian Federation of Students-Services v. Nameshield Inc. (Domain Transferred - One Panelist - PDF)
    isic.ca
    The Complainant is a federal not-for-profit corporation and operator of the International Student Identity Card (ISIC) program, and owner of the ISIC trademark in Canada. The Registrant's sole Director is Daniel Mullen, am individual that has participated in numerous domain name disputes over the years. The Registrant operates a pay-per-click website. The parties attempted to negotiate for the transfer of the Domain Name, but Mr. Mullen suggested that the Complainant commence a CDRP. In addition to leading website visitors to a pay-per-click website, The Panel found that the Domain Name was filed in bad faith because the Registrant owns numerous domain names that closely correspond to registered trademarks, and previous panels have held that the Registrant has a pattern of registering domain names in bad faith. (summary prepared by David Lipkus)
 

sonatime

Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2021
Topics
1
Posts
98
Likes
71
PPFC is the cause again?

Anyone know the fee for for filing a CDRP?

The values and resales of .ca's makes defending some (most) of them cost prohibitive.

Clearly the registrant is a repeat offender:)
(trying to insert some humour into this CDRP nightmare)
 

davidm

BusinessRegistration.ca
Joined
Mar 31, 2021
Topics
16
Posts
45
Likes
81
  • #485 - Canadian Federation of Students-Services v. Nameshield Inc. (Domain Transferred - One Panelist - PDF)
The design trademark asserted in the complaint CIPO Registration number TMA414189 is owned by ISIC ASSOCIATION in Denmark. The Canadian Federation of Students-Services doesn't own any trademarks resembling the word ISIC.

So how does a licensee have rights in a trademark? Certainly the Canadian Federation of Students-Services' rights to use the ISIC marks are revocable by the trademark owner, so it doesn't appear that it was the party entitled to bring the complaint.

See sections 8 and 9 of the CDRP rules state:

8. specify the Marks on which the Complaint is based and, for each Mark, describe the goods, services, business or non-commercial activity, if any, with which the Mark has been or is used by the Complainant, or a predecessor in title, or a licensor or a licensee thereof;

9. in accordance with the Policy, but without exceeding five thousand (5000) words for the first domain and up to a thousand (1000) additional words for each additional domain in dispute, plus any Schedules, describe the particulars of the basis for the Complaint, including in particular:
  1. why the Registrant’s dot-ca domain name should be considered as Confusingly Similar to a Mark in which the Complainant had Rights prior to the date of registration of the domain name and continues to have such Rights;
  2. why the Registrant should be considered as having no legitimate interest in the domain name as described in paragraph 3.4 of the Policy; and
  3. why the Registrant should be considered as having registered the domain name in bad faith as described in paragraph 3.5 of the Policy.

    The description should discuss any aspects of paragraphs 3.4 and 3.5 of the Policy that may be applicable to the Proceeding;
CIRA Domain Name Dispute Resolution Rules

4L Domain names are inherently valuable and their registration is fair under the UDRP Consensus 3.0. CDRP panelists should adopt the same viewpoint.

Was it fair to register a 4L acronym in 2014 when there were a few different non-trademark owners who used the acronym in their names and when there was no evidence targeting asserted?

1 ISIC QC-1168678184 2012-11-12 Active
2 ISIC ON-191082536 2009-10-26 Inactive
3 ISIC QC-1164806342 2007-11-09 Inactive
4 ISIC CANADA ON-310600713 2021-04-12 Active
5 ISIC TECHNOLOGIES INC. SK-0000587168 1988-05-13 Inactive
6 ISIC & DESIGN TM-0504331 1983-06-10 Inactive 16
7 ISIC DESIGN TM-1903119 2018-06-07 Active 9 , 35 , 39 , 41 , 42 , 43
8 ISIC & Design TM-1399325 2008-06-12 Active 16 , 35 , 41
9 ISIC & DESIGN TM-0688594 1991-08-28 Active 16
10 LI'L ISIC BATH SHOP LTD. AB-200880623 1976-03-05 Inactive
11 I.S.I.C. TM-0504329 1983-05-05 Inactive 16


In the Dagi Giyim San. Ve tic.a. ş. v. PrivacyDotLink Customer 4594967 / Domain Admin, WIPO Case No. D2022-2730

re: dagi.com, it was held:

The Complainant completely ignored the fact that four-letter Domain Names may be intrinsically valuable globally and hence the disputed Domain Name could have been registered by a person unconnected with Türkiye.
There are in fact persons and businesses outside Türkiye that use the term “dagi” as their name or part of their name or as an acronym, completely independently of any connection with Türkiye. The Respondent convincingly demonstrates that it acquired the disputed Domain Name on December 20, 2012 as part of a portfolio of other four letter domain names.
Co-Panelists: Private Research Undertaken by the Presiding Panelist Contaminated the Case ICA UDRP Digest - Vol 2.42 - InternetCommerce.org

1668993244772.png
 

davidm

BusinessRegistration.ca
Joined
Mar 31, 2021
Topics
16
Posts
45
Likes
81
PPFC is the cause again?

Anyone know the fee for for filing a CDRP?

The values and resales of .ca's makes defending some (most) of them cost prohibitive.

Clearly the registrant is a repeat offender:)
(trying to insert some humour into this CDRP nightmare)
Yes, The Domain Name resolved to a pay-per-click website depicting links referring to the ISIC card as well as other products directed to students, according to the opinion, but that's no surprise. PPC ads usually re-target visitors based on the websites listed in their browser history, and if the advertisers signed up for retargeting campaigns, especially if the advertisers listed the URL in their preferred websites.

So ISIC's ad agency probably rigged those ads to appear on the respondent's website.

Lesson: Don't use Parking Crew or GoDaddy for your landing pages.
A non-refundable filing fee of $1,050 CDN is paid by the Complainant when a Complaint is filed in connection with .CA domain name administrative proceeding under the CIRA Domain Name Dispute Resolution Rules.

Panel fees set out below are in addition to the non-refundable filing fee specified above.

Number of Disputed Domain NamesSingle-Member PanelThree-Member Panel
1$1,837.50 CDNTotal: $3,150.00 CDN
2-5$2,362.50 CDNTotal: $4,725.00 CDN
6-10$2,625.00 CDNTotal: $5,512.50 CDN
All funds are in Canadian Dollars.

Applicable taxes (GST) are included in the above-noted fees.


Payment shall be made via the CIIDRC payment processing platform.
CDRP Fee Schedule - Canadian International Internet Dispute Resolution Centre